httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David D'Antonio" <>
Subject Re: "Win32"?
Date Wed, 15 Jul 1998 16:14:25 GMT

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexei Kosut <akosut@leland.Stanford.EDU>
To: <>
Date: Wednesday, July 15, 1998 3:00 AM
Subject: "Win32"?

>Thinking about Marc's recent change to the 1.3.1 Announcement, I think the
>word "Win32" is too liberally applied in that, and other, documents.
>We're using "Win32" to mean "Windows NT, 95 and 98", but AFAIK, it simply
>refers to an API. So while saying that "Apache 1.3 has a Win32 port" or
>referring to "the current Win32 code" is fine, saying "on Win32, there is
>more than one name for a file" isn't. I mean, it's not the API's fault
>that the file system and the part of the kernel that talks to it is
>screwed up. And there is definitely not a "Win32 file system". In the
>various Windows incarnations, there are at least three in common use (FAT,
>FAT32, NTFS).

It is actually worse than this in that there are several versions of the "Win32
API." NT has all the security stuff that Win95/98 lack, not to mention the
APIs. Windows CE has an even more brain-dead version where several calls
don't work but don't return errors, either! But, in general, you are right,
Win32 is
a good enough description of the API.

>IMHO, the proper word to use here is just "Windows". It's also clearer -
>in all probablility, not everyone knows what Win32 means, or should.

You could also say that it is a Windows NT port that might work on Windows
95/98. That way you are suggesting the "correct" platform, too. :-)

>-- Alexei Kosut <> <>


View raw message